Judgment 1. This Court, in Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2010, on 15th April, 2010, directed the petitioner to deposit certain amount, which was equivalent to 50% of the outstanding dues, as on 15th April, 2010 with the respondent Bank within a period of four weeks, failing which it is said that not only the interim protection would stand vacated, but even the Writ Petition would be dismissed for non prosecution. Admittedly, within four weeks, the amount was not deposited. In August, 2010, the respondent Bank initiated proceeding for sale of the petitioner's property for recovery of the outstanding dues. In the meantime, the petitioner moved a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, and on 4th October, 2010, the Supreme Court dismissed it. But it directed that if the petitioner complied with the impugned order dated 14th April, 2010 within a further period of four weeks from 4th October, 2010, the Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2010 should stand reviewed. The petitioner communicated this order to the respondent bank. 2. Soon thereafter, the bank proceeded with the proposed auction sale of the petitioner's property. On 18th October, 2010, the respondent bank accepted the tender submitted by the highest bidder and published this information in a newspaper. The petitioner made complaint to the bank saying that their action could amount to Contempt of Court vide their Advocates letter dated 20th October, 2010. To this, bank responded saying that though the tender was accepted, the sale was not completed, and the sale would not be completed if the petitioner deposited the entire amount due, which was quoted as Rs.9,10,30,846/- (Rs. Nine Crore ten lacs thirty thousand eight hundred forty six). 3. The bank did not proceed further with the auction sale. 4. This petition seeks action under Contempt of Courts Act. It was moved on 27th October, 2010, yet the petitioner did not deposit the amount, as directed by this Court, vide its order dated 15th April, 2010 and which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. Even today, the amount has remained unpaid. With the result, Writ Petition No. 2488 of 2010 has not been revived and it stood dismissed. 5. The question is, if the respondent bank had taken steps for auction sale of the petitioner's property, would it amount to disobedience of the order passed by the Court? The answer to this is in negative. 6. With the result, Writ Petition No. 2488 of 2010 has not been revived and it stood dismissed. 5. The question is, if the respondent bank had taken steps for auction sale of the petitioner's property, would it amount to disobedience of the order passed by the Court? The answer to this is in negative. 6. As said above, the bank initiated action for auction sale of the petitioner's property long back in August, 2010 and said proceedings continued. The Supreme Court afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to deposit the amount within four weeks from 4th October, 2010. Had the petitioner deposited the amount in Court within stipulated time, the Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2010 would have not only revived, but the interim injunction prohibiting the bank to sale the property would have revived. If that had not happened, the complaint about the disobedience does not arise at all. The petitioner has not shown his bonafides by depositing the amount, as directed by this Court and also by the Supreme Court. The petitioner thus cannot substantiate his complaint about disobedience of the order passed by the Court. 7. Even otherwise, the petitioner still has opportunity to deposit dues and stop the bank from selling the property. The petitioner’s property has still not been sold to the proposed purchaser at least till today. If the petitioner takes evasive action he might get the some relief directly from the bank. In view of above, the Contempt petition stands dismissed.